Re: New Year check-in

> On Jan 9, 2024, at 15:44, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 9:14 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> So we would probably have a separate part of the report which refers to various real-life applications using RDFC.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> It may be a disservice for us if the only applications that would appear on our report were DI implementations.
> 
> By all means, we should include any real world usage of RDFC.
> 
>> Bottom line: if the only source of implementation/usage reports is from the DI community, it may be wiser not to do it at all imho.
> 
> Err, that doesn't make sense to me. It feels like that's saying:
> "Let's ignore the largest implementation community that's using
> RDF-CANON."
> 
> I see no benefit in us ignoring or not reporting on implementations
> and usage. RDFC was initially created for the DI use cases, so
> demonstrating that it has adoption there is useful. It's also
> generally useful beyond DI, and we should report on if that's already
> happening (or it might be too early). IIRC, there were a few Linked
> Data database vendors that were looking into RDFC.

On long term: by all means we have to report that. But note that it is not part of our official CR exit criteria to document adoption at this stage already.

However, and call me paranoiac: going to a PR->REC vote with only DI examples in an "adoption of this technology" part of our official CR implementation report may be asking for trouble during the AC vote. If we only report the results of the official test suite, ie, or official CR exit criteria, then we are fine and we may pass the hurdle with flying colours.


Ivan



> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43